Autocatalysis is the last of the four themes comprising Conversation (the first concept of the Ontology Of Participation). Shared conversations become the fuel for further conversations, initiating a self-replicating process that ensures the preservation of the activity.

This idea of autocatalysis comes from biology, but is an interesting application in the context of participation. Stuart Kauffman explains it from a biological perspective:

In comparison, conversations with a product (artifact, service, system, environment) can grow to a point that they self-replicate, initiating a community.

For instance, Smart Mobs (similar to Flash Mobs, which I talked about in a previous post) exist when individuals gather in a specific place, typically a political rally or protest, and utilize mobile technology to coordinate efforts. When conflict arises during these events, individuals can use their mobile phones to share information about the movement of authorities to avoid capture. The situation in which these events occur, in combination with the available technology and the mindset of the people present, serve as catalysts for the Smart Mob behavior. The coexistence of all of these factors causes the behavior to replicate itself to the point that the actions of the technologically linked mob take on a life of its own, almost becoming a living organism.

[WTO protests 10 (Battle of Seattle) from djbones on flickr] For example, consider the Smart Mob example in Howard Rheingold's book by the same name. In 1999, demonstrators protesting the World Trade Organization (WTO), used mobile phones, text messaging, and websites to elude authorities in what came to be known as the "Battle of Seattle." According to the report Black Flag Over Seattle, by Paul de Armond (via Smart Mobs, 2003, by Howard Rheingold — page 161):

The report further states:

As you can see in this example, the coordinated efforts of the demonstrators led to a Smart Mob that fed on itself, taking on a life of it's own.

Force is the third of the four themes comprising Conversation (the first concept of the Ontology Of Participation). The force of Conversation happens when an increasing number of people involved in adaptive behaviors exert a force that may trigger a community (the primordial goo of adaptive enterprises).

For example, the introduction of blogging software enabled motivated individuals to share their thoughts with large audiences without any expertise in formatting content for publication on the web (previously a requirement). Content was easily produced, which ignited a trend and brought greater quantities of people into the activity. Like-minded bloggers soon connected with one another via comments on each others posts, trackback links, and the blogroll. Eventually, bloggers convened in the real world at blogger-specific conferences (BloggerCon, BlogHer, Wine Bloggers, etc.). Not only was the convergence of bloggers inevitable, but a tension with mainstream media emerged (e.g., Rathergate). While a battle between traditional and participative media wages on, the lines between the two are just beginning to blur. Today, 'the media' is enamored with tools like Facebook (see Rick Sanchez of CNN) and Twitter (as usual, the Daily Show nails it) as well as implementing their own (NYTimes blogs, CNN iReports).

[Apple Newton from brianmadden.com by Brian Madden] One of the most fascinating examples centers on an Apple product, but not one you might think. It's actually the Apple Newton (Apple's mid 1990s PDA). While the Newton was shelved in the late 90s, a small but vibrant group of individuals kept using the device. As support from the manufacturer dwindled, users began servicing the device on their own. Eventually, a community formed: enter NewtonTalk. This community has kept the Newton alive for nearly a decade. They've kept third party applications working, created replacement hardware components, and even developed an emulation that enables the Newton Operating system to run on different devices. I'll post more on NewtonTalk later as an example of Hard Hacking & Soft Hacking.

Expectation is the next of the four themes comprising Conversation (the first concept of the Ontology Of Participation). Certain functional qualities of a product allow for it to be used in a familiar way, but to achieve an unexpected outcome (the intended use of some products is broad enough to allow for flexibility in its use).

For instance, communication technology (telephone) has permeated our lives for several decades now. Its purpose is to allow us to communicate with people we know, or intend to know. The emergence of mobile phone technology has sparked fascinating behaviors in many societies. Specifically, I'm referring to the Flash Mob. I talked about this previously when I described Group Assembly. Individuals participating in FlashMobs utilize communication technologies the way they are intended — to communicate with other people — but what's different here is that the technology is used to communicate with people they don't know. It's this use that is unexpected.

[Macy's "love rug" Flash Mob in 2003 from Satan's Laundromat by Mike] For example, one of the first flash mobs occurred at a Macy's in Manhattan in June of 2003. The crowd was coordinated using text messages, email, and blogs. The expectation for using text messages and email is to communicate with people you know, but in this case the communication occurred among strangers (unexpected). Nearly 100 people gathered around a $10,000 rug. If asked by a store employee if they needed assistance, were instructed to say they all lived together in a 'free-love commune' and were looking to purchase a 'love rug' but they always shopped together as a group (see this great article on Flash Mobs, Flash! Mobs in the Age of Mobile Connectivity, by Judith A. Nicholson).

Again, this is an example of using a product (mobile phone and email) in an expected way (communication) to achieve an unexpected outcome (coordinate strangers to gather and act in a coordinated way).

Intention is the first of four themes comprising Conversation (the first concept of the Ontology Of Participation). During the design and creation of a product, certain considerations are made that influence its final outcome. Some are specifically related to the product itself (interface affordances, shapes of buttons, functionality, outcomes of a service, etc.), some are the enterprise's needs (cost break even, profit, governance, competitive advantage, etc.), and others processes from which the product is realized (ethnographic research findings, identified customer needs, flexibility of materials or technologies used, etc.). These considerations make up the characteristics of the product and define how it will be used once in the hands of the customer. As products (or services, systems, environments) are designed to solve problems, satisfy needs, or encourage behaviors, designers embody within the form of the product the intention for its use.

For example, consider the Apple iPod. (Note: I acknowledge that Apple examples can get tired. That being said, I'm using Apple here for two reasons. First, because I originally used this example back in 2003 before Apple examples were tired. Second, Apple is always an example because they get so many things right. Going forward, I'll do my best to use fewer Apple examples.)
[First Generation iPod from Engadget via iPod Republic]The first iPod was meant to be an MP3 digital music player. Songs were to be downloaded only from a Macintosh computer and the player would serve as a portable device to listen to music. While the original functionality was simple, its goals were also simple: store and play digital music. That's it. (Obviously, today's iPod is much more robust, but the first iPods were far more simple. Check out this history of iPod and iTunes functionality.) Of course, aesthetics and other sub-cultural attributes (i.e., die-hard Mac fans) play a significant role in how products are treated. It's all of these attributes that likely acted as a key motivator for individuals to choose the iPod as the hub for participative behavior on the part of the early adoopters.

From a functional standpoint, alternative uses were not Apple’s intention. Shortly after its release, some owners began to analyze how the device worked at the software level and envisioned other uses it might serve. Individually, people began to create their own applications for the device, such as a tool for synchronizing the iPod with a computer running Microsoft Windows. EphPod was one of the first applications launched that provided this functionality by tricking the iPod into thinking it was connected to a Macintosh mounted drive. Native Windows connectivity wouldn't come to the iPod until almost a year later (using Yahoo! MusicMatch) and a Windows version of iTunes wouldn't come until a year and a half after the original launch. The adapting enterprises brought the desired functionality long before Apple (originating enterprise).

The specific functionality that Apple planned to offer for the iPod was not initially clear. Regardless, nothing in their public placement and branding indicated that the iPod was to be used in this way. The adopters of this product took it upon themselves to enhance its functionality.

The possibilities of the first iPod, coupled with its aesthetics and cultural heritage, fostered intention for its owners to push its functionality into new design spaces.

The first concept of the Ontology Of Participation is Conversation: Individuals interact with things in a more meaningful way — they have a conversation with products — extending them beyond the utility for which they were created and into new design spaces.

Conversation with a product occurs when an individual uses it in a manner inconsistent with the specifications intended by the originating enterprise. Rather than the product being a completed part of the world, the world is becoming part of the product. As meaningful participation with the product begins, the conversation leads to the realization of new possibilities. And as a person’s interaction with the product breeches its predefined role in utility, it takes on human-like characteristics, almost exhibiting a life of its own. The interaction becomes more sophisticated, much like face-to-face communication. Conversation is the starting point of the adapting enterprise — many people may be engaged in conversation with a product, but those individuals haven't combined forces yet.

The following themes describe the characteristics of the conversational aspects of this elevated interaction.

[Conversation from Adoption, Participation, And The Propagation Of Design Continuities by Brian Haven]Intention: The functional characteristics and brand identity embodied in a product define how it will be used.

Expectation: Some functional qualities of a product let it to be used in a familiar way, but to achieve an unexpected outcome.

Force: An increasing number of people involved in adaptive behaviors exerts a force that may trigger a community (the primordial goo of adaptive enterprises).

Autocatalysis: Shared conversations become the fuel for further conversations, initiating a self-replicating process that ensures the preservation of the activity.

I'll break these themes down with examples over the next several days.

Members of adapting enterprises pursue engaging and meaningful interactions that embody a special kind of participation. As the behaviors of these communities continue to emerge and become more common, their impact on products, and on the design practice itself, will be significant. It’s critical for both the originating enterprises and the design discipline to be aware of the people who will engage in these activities. Both need to understand the underlying concepts that explain how this kind of participation exists in the world. To help open the discussion and facilitate further understanding of the behaviors of adapting enterprises, I’ve broken things down into a set of concepts that explain how participation happens — an ontology of participation. This ontology is based on my masters thesis at Carnegie Mellon completed back in 2004. So far, I feel this framework still applies, even though I created it back when blogs, social networks and other forms of social media were in their infancy.

[Ontology of Participation: Adoption, Participation, & The Propagation Of Design Discontinuities by Brian Haven]It’s based on analysis of the examples outlined in previous posts (hard-hacking & soft-hacking, group assembly, self-declaration, and systematic engagement). They address issues beyond the mere creation of products by an originating enterprise. Instead, they address the creative activities exerted on products that extend them beyond the utility for which they were originally created. Additionally, this ontology also addresses the creation of entirely new products by non-commercial entities. (Note: Please remember that when I refer to a 'product' I mean that it can be an artifact, service, system, environment, etc., it's not limited to a physical object.)

The five ontological concepts of participation are:

• Conversation: Individuals interact with things in a more meaningful way — they have a conversation with products — extending them beyond the utility for which they were created and into new design spaces.

  
  

• Community: Common behaviors among these individuals motivate them to come together, emerging as adapting enterprises with the purpose of sharing knowledge and resources.

  
  

• Accessibility: The collective activities and products of adapting enterprises extend beyond the communal borders and into the broader public, easily (and likely) accessible to anyone.

  
  

• Symmetry: The originating enterprises take notice of the adapting enterprises' efforts and are forced to respond (sometimes positively, often not).

  
  

• Phase Transition: New ways of thinking emerge to address the new behaviors and interactions between originating and adapting enterprises, blurring the lines between the two.